Conservatives and our libertarian cousins have developed  a number of proposals that will counter the onerous burdens of government, removing costly regulation, expanding health care accessibility, and making insurance and care competitive.

1. Abolish Medicare and Medicaid. Combined, their annual cost is roughly $1 trillion, especially after we take into account interest paid on the debt. Medicare’s unfunded liabilities alone total $34 trillion for the next 75 years.

These programs don’t reimburse physicians for the full cost of services, so providers, to remain solvent, shift this onto those with private insurance. This partly explains the rising cost of health insurance.

Additionally, Medicaid patients, according to at least one recent study, experience outcomes worse than or equivalent to those lacking any insurance whatsoever. Why spend $450 billion on a program with such a horrible record?

2. Abolish the Food and Drug Administration. 80 percent of pharmaceutical costs result from federal regulations, making medications more expensive for consumers. These guidelines also delay the introduction of potentially life-saving treatments, in addition to discouraging firms from investing in revolutionary drugs.

As pills are far easier to afford than hospital stays, this new pattern of innovation will, in all likelihood, reduce overall health spending as new treatments eliminate the need for hospital stays.

Though you may assume that, without federal oversight, patients will be at the mercy of predatory, profit-motivated companies, the truth is that market forces serve to ensure quality. Companies, if they seek revenues and want to avoid expensive lawsuits, will want to maintain a record of safety and effectiveness for their products.

This will also lower insurance premiums. Simply stated, if care doesn’t cost as much, insurance companies will find no utility in keeping premiums at a higher level.

Furthermore, medical organizations or reliable, publicly-recognizable third parties might examine experimental treatments and choose to offer or deny their public endorsement, thus serving to replace, in part, government intervention.

3. A key concern is the accessibility of insurance and treatment for infirmed and elderly individuals. For many, financial difficulty will have been reduced or eliminated due to the positive impact of deregulation.

One possibility will be mutual aid societies, which operate upon the principle of voluntary, charitable redistribution of financial resources, in which members provide money to others in the program who require assistance. These are distinguished from government systems by existing within the private sector and offering varied services depending upon consumers’ specific wants and needs. As progressives are pro-choice, they should endorse these services.

The use of charity could, as a last resort, provide a safety net for the indigent and ill who have no means of covering medical expenses. One example of such an enterprise is the St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, which doesn’t charge families who are incapable of paying for treatment. As Americans are the most generous givers on the planet, it is not far-fetched to assume that this would function effectively.

4. We must reassess our definition of insurance. At its core, the term refers to a guarantee of compensation for a future financial loss outside of one’s control. This principle applies to floods, automotive accidents, and fires, to name a few. Health insurance, however, has broadened to include predictable costs, like birth control. This trend raises premiums and encourages over-consumption, the result being an inflation of costs.

The Economist writes: “America's insurance system encourages overuse in several ways. One is the tax break that favours health insurance provided by employers, which leads to excessively generous coverage and hence over-consumption.” (http://www.economist.com/node/13899647)

Health savings accounts that can be managed actively to grow like retirement accounts can help with routine spending, as well as helping to save for old age.

5. Another option for insuring against high-cost conditions is a high-deductible (commonly referred to as catastrophic) plan, which helps protect policyholders from financial disaster without the need to enroll in more complicated insurance programs. By expanding these, we can help more families obtain at least some coverage.

6. Create a nationwide health insurance market. Currently, policies cannot be old across state lines, restricting the options available to consumers. However, they may gain access to cheaper plans if interstate barriers are lifted.

The highest average annual premium for a family is $13,437 for those residing in New Jersey. In North Dakota, the equivalent value is $9,173. Why shouldn’t families in states with higher costs be able to select cheaper plans from elsewhere in the country?